Not understanding without doing

Is this related to type, not understanding without doing?

If you give the person directions for how to perform some action, he will listen to you, but only kind of, knowing that the directions will be almost meaningless until the actual action is being performed. So then when he is doing the action he tries to recall what he was told about how to do it, but mostly just pays attention to what's happening, makes a note of what works and what doesn't, and only then "gets it."

Weak Ne? I was wondering if this person might even be LSI, but don't they supposedly always follow directions and so, I assume, learn from them??

lol could be in some people, but this guy is super smart. I wonder even if he doesn't listen to the directions because he knows he'll be able to figure it out on his own anyway. He's one of those people who is good at most things they try. Very enviable. Er, admirable

people understand stuff better once they do it. i'm frustrated by this thread because i cant figure out if this obviousness is being missed or if he is unique in that he is genuinely incapable of remembering instructions.

If you give the person directions for how to perform some action, he will listen to you, but only kind of, knowing that the directions will be almost meaningless until the actual action is being performed. So then when he is doing the action he tries to recall what he was told about how to do it, but mostly just pays attention to what's happening, makes a note of what works and what doesn't, and only then "gets it."

Weak Ne? I was wondering if this person might even be LSI, but don't they supposedly always follow directions and so, I assume, learn from them??

Instruction giving/following is more complicated than most people imagine. Particularly if the person receiving the instructions is completely unfamiliar with the context.

For example, imagine giving instructions to someone who's never heard of personality typing systems before, about how to type someone else using socionics. The instructon giver is likely to use terms that they are familiar with, but at best have a vague meaning to the listener, that likely has little to do with the intended meaning of the term. The process of typing someone is also likely unfamiliar.

Can the instruction giver provide for every possible contingency that might pop up? Not likely. And the kinds of connections that the human mind can conceive is near infinite.

If the listener is quick, they might get the general gist of the idea of what the instructions are asking for. If the listener is familiar with the context (which buttons to push, when, and why), then they'll have an easier time recalling the details of the instructions.

Even if a person says that they understand the instructions, putting it into practice creates its own conundrum, as what the listener imagined (pictured) happening is not likely to be what they actually face. Lots of details get ignored, missed, unknown that , when faced with the actual situation, creates a dissonance in the mind as the person has to re-work out what the instructions meant.

This is one reason why many people will write the instructions down and/or reread/recite the instructions as they perform the actions.

When instruction booklets/manuals are created, the creators have to go through an intensive feedback system where they get people to follow their instructions, and then provide feedback as to where the instructions erred/missed.

----

I have a book I purchased when I was homeschooling my daughter. It gives instructions for the parent to read out, for the child to follow. The results of the instructions are a picture drawn by the child. (half the instructions allowed creativity by the child, with a few guidelines)

I showed it to a friend, and, like me initially, she read a sample of it, and tried following along. Reading one sentence at a time, and sometimes she had to rework out how the instructions led to each other.

When she finally understood it, I picked a random instruction set, and read them out to her, a little at a time. She got frustrated a few times, but we got through it.

Then I had her read me a random instruction set. And she got frustrated watching me as I tried to work out what the instructions meant. (the reader had an image to aide the reader in understanding what was being asked for)

This allowed her to actually experience what it was like to receive the instructions, as her daughter would, and to give the instructions while knowing ahead of time what's meant. Both sides were filled with frustration.

Then, to make a further point, I had her imagine a picture she'd want me to draw, and to give me instructions one step at a time. She found this much harder, of course, than reading. Through my following her instructions, she got feedback as to how often she skipped steps, or skipped relevant info needed, or how what she said could be interpreted multiple ways, etc.

Then, I gave her instructions of my own. And she got to experience how frustrating it is to work with incomplete instructions.

The point of this experience, as I told her, is that now she has a better understanding of what her daughter goes through when she's given a full list of instructions all at once, and expected to follow them to the letter at a later time.

If you give the person directions for how to perform some action, he will listen to you, but only kind of, knowing that the directions will be almost meaningless until the actual action is being performed. So then when he is doing the action he tries to recall what he was told about how to do it, but mostly just pays attention to what's happening, makes a note of what works and what doesn't, and only then "gets it."

Weak Ne? I was wondering if this person might even be LSI, but don't they supposedly always follow directions and so, I assume, learn from them??

This sounds like how I operate. I'm pretty good at kinesthetic learning, it's easier for me to internalize how something is done if I just up and do it. Engage myself in the process, etc. I assumed that most people were like this though?

Yeah, gonna pull the NTR card. Who ever understood something better before they did it?

I've had to teach physical tasks to innumerable people of presumably every type and I never really noticed any that held my words particularly more highly than actual practice. Kinda wish some had, but I'm not sure if they disregarded them or I just wasn't able to transmit the central principles of building brick walls out of boxes. Generally, it's better to show as you explain, walk them through not just the aspects of construction but the way you move, what you look at and look for, sort of the cognitive experience of looking back and seeing a hundred boxes coming down the chute and trying to find the most common dimension and basing each shelf on that, bending at the knees not your back and grabbing each box by opposite corners, giving it a quick spin to find which side the label's on, scan, pivot back to the wall, place, deep even breaths, pivot back, push flow while looking for small boxes to fill inevitable odd holes, intensity, break jams, hydrate, help others, hunt for backed up trailers, control your anger, smile, laugh, elevate, don't look at clocks, focus, feel the muscles you're using, delight in motion, be a dork and post this on the internet.

Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend

Yeah, gonna pull the NTR card. Who ever understood something better before they did it?

I've had to teach physical tasks to innumerable people of presumably every type and I never really noticed any that held my words particularly more highly than actual practice. Kinda wish some had, but I'm not sure if they disregarded them or I just wasn't able to transmit the central principles of building brick walls out of boxes. Generally, it's better to show as you explain, walk them through not just the aspects of construction but the way you move, what you look at and look for, sort of the cognitive experience of looking back and seeing a hundred boxes coming down the chute and trying to find the most common dimension and basing each shelf on that, bending at the knees not your back and grabbing each box by opposite corners, giving it a quick spin to find which side the label's on, scan, pivot back to the wall, place, deep even breaths, pivot back, push flow while looking for small boxes to fill inevitable odd holes, intensity, break jams, hydrate, help others, hunt for backed up trailers, control your anger, smile, laugh, elevate, don't look at clocks, focus, feel the muscles you're using, delight in motion, be a dork and post this on the internet.

I've met people who understood something from a principles standpoint, tried to do it but failed at doing it, then decided that their understanding was wrong and went to some absurd rationalization in order to fix it but never did it effectively regardless of what they did.

I think understanding is about understanding not just what you can do but what others can do and doing is not just about being effective but also understanding how others can be effective.

I could have meant anything when I said slow....I could have meant methodical.

I have a grandfather like that...Try to explain something to him and you have to do it very slow and in an order for him to even begin trying to comprehend the material. He doesn't like jumping into stuff, when working on something he likes a list of what to do step by step so he can understand. If there are no list of directions, he has no choice but to actually start working on the material hands on, but even this is a step by step process as well...taking a mental note of what works and what doesn't. It could be a trait of LSI, which is what I think he might most likely be.

I can just jump right into it and automatically know what to do, any other way such as directions slow me down. But if need be, with either a list, some diagram, or someone telling me by direction, i'll still understand what needs to be done which he doesn't like because he can't follow that train of thought very well.

Well, I relate to that. I also psyche myself out when people are giving me instructions sometimes and so then I don't even hear them anymore. I'm much better if left alone with the thing I'm supposed to be figuring out for a while and then after I feel I understand things about it, then would prefer to ask questions if I have any. I remember when I took Chemistry that reading over the lab instructions before the lab so as to prepare myself just rather overwhelmed me because I wasn't sure what they meant exactly as I couldn't see any of the the things in the instructions. Then when I got to lab I'd feel under a fair amount of pressure, afraid that if I got overwhelmed and locked up that I wouldn't be able to resolve it and would just stand there having no idea what to do. And people really swoop in when you're stuck like that and start bombarding you with information and that gets me more stuck, fearing that they'll eventually conclude I'm a hopeless case and will never understand (not smart enough). By then I may agree with them.

I remember once in a Math class when I was in lock up mode that one of my group members took me aside and managed to somehow interrupt my lock and insisted he knew I could understand the problem we were on. And then after I could pay attention, he explained it and I began to actually get it. This was a long time ago but I still remember it really well because I was really grateful at the time. I was surprised also because I usually avoided him most out of the group because I was a little intimidated by him.

I also will pretend to understand things when I don't in social situations until I can get away and explore it alone. I'm not very good at thinking on my feet, basically. (Or at thinking quickly.)

But there have been times with things to assemble that I've read the instructions only part way and then kind of dove in. In part at the time I liked being able to figure things out with minimal help. In part I was impatient driven by a flash in my mind of how it fit together and kind of trying to get there before I lost the image. In part I needed some kind of hands-on component with the instructions. And in part I have little faith in some of these instruction sheets because sometimes they seem to be written in the most retarded and confusing way imaginable. I seem to have lost all interest in these matters in recent years. Last time I had to assemble something I felt really overwhelmed and my mom ended up doing it for me, which was a relief. This something was a table and actually assembling it involved her pounding on it with a hammer and um other things because apparently the pieces were cut poorly and the holes were in slightly the wrong places and so on. This is why for things I prefer them to already be assembled or require the least assembly possible because I think that would have been a hump I wouldn't have gotten over.

It is called kinesthetic learning and not everyone needs this manner to learn most things (on Wikipedia it is stated that 5% of the population qualifies). I am a predominantly kinesthetic learner and for example if someone teaches me build or programming instructions, even if it make sense and in the end I realize it is correct and clear, I have to try it out first. I think that kinesthetic learning is the last resort of persons who are least likely to use conventions, as in communication a lot of conventions and common ground have to exist, though to these persons, a lot of statements can mean anything, everything is context-based. For instance, is it "my left" or the left of the last direction, or the left of the first direction? For some people, a red code means access denied or stop, unless otherwise specified, for others on the contrary, it doesn't mean anything until a context is stated for each case in particular, which complicates say visual learning, especially when many such associations are cluttered in one go.

This is often a problem in education, one thing is to have the theory first and the application after, another thing is to first experiement then being explained, they are different things for different people.

I think it is type-related, but not to be assigned that easy. It depends on the background and what is being learned, also beginners in a totally unfamiliar field or to a new nomenclature (or code, conventional marks) are always kinesthetic (correct me if I'm wrong). It also depends on the relationship between the style (maybe type, too) of the learner and the one of the teacher, like-minded people understand each other rather quickly. But as a general line, kinesthetic learning is IMO more likely to occure in types that are, not necessarily in this order:
- Extrovert
- Irrational
- Merry
- Judicious
(including accent on Rational+Merry when Decisive and Irrational+Judicious when Serious, but then again, it depends on Extroversion)

This makes sense in theory. It would also imply that ILE is the most kinesthetic type and ESI the most non-kinesthetic type, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to tell if that is always the case. Because I have a personal interest in this, I have often observed issues between ILEs and ILIs in communication when working together, the ILE cutting the ILI off, going to his desk to try out what is being said along the way, the ILI trying to stop the ILE, asking for understanding the background first. Other than that, just bits and pieces .

For my POV, it depends on what I'm supposed to do. Example: I can orient myself in a new city based on purely written or graphical instructions and/or a general layout. I would call such an understanding "passive", since I do not need to elaborate new informations and/or mold reality with knowledge I've acquired.

On the other hand, whenever I need to purposefully "produce" something - either programming, writing or speaking in a foreign language, repairing a mechanical device etc. - then I don't see how anyone could master such activities without direct practice.